According to the market, Google is worth 132.5 billion dollars; but is it really worth more than IBM or Coca-Cola, and almost three times as much as Disney?
You answered your own question. If "the market" says Google is worth 3X that of Disney, then it actually is. It's the only metric that matters. You and I and Warren Buffet sitting at the bar telling each other that Google isn't really worth that much is irrelevant.
To me, one of the dumbest all time political rationales is, "I've found that smarter people lean to the left". I lean to the right, and I'd be happy to put my 3 college degrees, SAT, and IQ score up against any of the dimwits who consider that a reasonable line of logic.
You're going to need more than a single data point to refute the OPs contention that average intelligence is higher amongst liberals. And FWIW, Clown and Barber don't count as colleges.
FYI, not all laws are bills passed by Congress. Many Federal regulations issued by the Executive Branch carry the force of law unless explicitly repealed by Congress. I don't know if that's the case here or not.
Seriously, why would anyone make it easier for themselves to be indicted?
For the same reasons people here in the USA are willing to give up their freedoms: - Because without it the terrorists win. - I've got nothing to hide - Won't somebody please think of the children? - Registered users won't have to show their papers when they board a plane. - and on and on.
Expensive drugs like AIDS treatments have found their way into the hands of plenty of poor people.
You have a definition for the word "plenty" that I'm not familiar with. 17 million people in Africa have died of AIDS and less than 1/10 of 1% of HIV+ people are receiving treatment. Doesn't sound like "plenty" to me.
And would starting to treat terminally ill patients right now provide as much scientific value?
It's interesting that this question would never have even come up without the activism of the HIV/AIDS community. Fast-tracking the FDA process was unheard of before then and nowadays many terminal diseases have advocates pushing for approvals, breast cancer is one prominent example. Just because you're treating people with an experimental procedure doesn't mean you abandon the scientific method. You can still have control groups and statistical analysis to advance the knowledge gained from treatments. As long as people are fully informed, I see no ethical problems.
Keep in mind that this is a small town and I don't think we can count on any big time sysadmins, like most of yourselves, being on staff.
I'm no "big time sysadmin" either but I have some security knowledge. Security is not a "set and forget" operation. You don't need a full-time dedicated person but you do need someone to keep up with fixes, etc. Otherwise, you're throwing money down a hole.
I enjoyed reading some of the quotes from the judges ruling, especially:
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
and for those radical right-wingers who think every ruling that goes against them is the sign of an "activist judiciary":
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board (bold-face added by me), aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
A bad day for the radical right but a very good day for our educational system.
Why is making fun of someone for their place of birth any different from making fun of someone for their race? Neither can be controlled by that person.
True enough. However, you can never stop being a certain color. You certainly can stop being ignorant and backward (if you want).
The question is, will they get punished for this by the authorities? The FBI and police seem to be happy to jail writers of virii or worms or those who spread vulnerabilities to unsuspecting systems
That's a really nice sentiment but unlikely to come to pass. For some odd reason, the majority of Americans don't seem to believe that coporations should be punished for crimes or have to pay for damage they do. If your suggestion were to become law, then air polluters might be required to pay for the health care for millions of asthmatic children and the managers of Dow Chemical would be on death row for the murder of 800 people in Bhopal, India.
It's not a "wild-eyed devotion" so much as a recognition that one thing is science and one thing is not. Kansan students are not going to be graduating knowing what is and is not science. I won't have any positions in my company available for astrologers either.
This country (US) is drifting more and more away from science and more towards superstition.... We're headed for trouble economically, culturally, and politically if we don't stop this nonsense.
"Headed for trouble"? Look around, friend - we have arrived.
That's a little strong; censorship efforts also come from the left, but more around issues of race, gender, and religion. Zealotry is an equal-opportunity annoyer.
While it's fun to bash the liberals for political-correctness, you're very wrong about the roots of censorship. From the American Library Association (bold-face is mine): Three of the 10 books on the "Ten Most Challenged Books of 2004" were cited for homosexual themes - which is the highest number in a decade. Sexual content and offensive language remain the most frequent reasons for seeking removal of books from schools and public libraries.
I can and I am. George Bush has openly said he wants "intelligent design" taught in schools. Time and effort spent teaching religion will be taken away from real subjects - most likely science. Why would you think otherwise?
I really don't feel that religion has anything to do with this.
You can't be serious. The efforts of the radical right to divert teaching time and effort away from real science and towards "intelligent design" is widely documented. And, even though it's not specifically science-related, information censorship in libraries and textbooks is nearly always driven by the religious zealots.
One can cherry-pick events to prove a case in either direction. However, until recently, the US never repudiated long-standing humanitarian accords, such as the Geneva Conventions. The difference is between isolated incidents contrary to over-arching policy and a recent fundamental shift in what is accepted as moral behavior. Torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is different than past incidents in that nobody, except some powerless Pfcs, got punished. Name another Attorney General that wrote a legal brief arguing in favor of torture.
Well, I am a good deal older than 7 years. Contrary to what the radical right would want you to believe, there was a time when the USA held a position of respected moral authority. Even our enemies, although they certainly hated us, respected us. The USA is finding themselves with fewer and fewer allies and there has never been a country so powerful that they have no need of allies.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the market, Google is worth 132.5 billion dollars; but is it really worth more than IBM or Coca-Cola, and almost three times as much as Disney?
You answered your own question. If "the market" says Google is worth 3X that of Disney, then it actually is. It's the only metric that matters. You and I and Warren Buffet sitting at the bar telling each other that Google isn't really worth that much is irrelevant.
"So, perhaps, it was was merely an "extra patriotic" Marriott employee."
J.W. Marriott is a MAJOR contributor to George Bush and the Republican party.
'Nuff said.
To me, one of the dumbest all time political rationales is, "I've found that smarter people lean to the left". I lean to the right, and I'd be happy to put my 3 college degrees, SAT, and IQ score up against any of the dimwits who consider that a reasonable line of logic.
You're going to need more than a single data point to refute the OPs contention that average intelligence is higher amongst liberals.
And FWIW, Clown and Barber don't count as colleges.
...show me the bill passed by congress ...
FYI, not all laws are bills passed by Congress. Many Federal regulations issued by the Executive Branch carry the force of law unless explicitly repealed by Congress. I don't know if that's the case here or not.
Seriously, why would anyone make it easier for themselves to be indicted?
For the same reasons people here in the USA are willing to give up their freedoms:
- Because without it the terrorists win.
- I've got nothing to hide
- Won't somebody please think of the children?
- Registered users won't have to show their papers when they board a plane.
- and on and on.
Expensive drugs like AIDS treatments have found their way into the hands of plenty of poor people.
You have a definition for the word "plenty" that I'm not familiar with.
17 million people in Africa have died of AIDS and less than 1/10 of 1% of HIV+ people are receiving treatment. Doesn't sound like "plenty" to me.
And would starting to treat terminally ill patients right now provide as much scientific value?
It's interesting that this question would never have even come up without the activism of the HIV/AIDS community. Fast-tracking the FDA process was unheard of before then and nowadays many terminal diseases have advocates pushing for approvals, breast cancer is one prominent example.
Just because you're treating people with an experimental procedure doesn't mean you abandon the scientific method. You can still have control groups and statistical analysis to advance the knowledge gained from treatments. As long as people are fully informed, I see no ethical problems.
Keep in mind that this is a small town and I don't think we can count on any big time sysadmins, like most of yourselves, being on staff.
I'm no "big time sysadmin" either but I have some security knowledge. Security is not a "set and forget" operation. You don't need a full-time dedicated person but you do need someone to keep up with fixes, etc. Otherwise, you're throwing money down a hole.
I enjoyed reading some of the quotes from the judges ruling, especially:
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
and for those radical right-wingers who think every ruling that goes against them is the sign of an "activist judiciary":
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board (bold-face added by me), aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
A bad day for the radical right but a very good day for our educational system.
1. I always ask if the position is newly created or replacing a departed employee and, if so, what was the reason for their leaving.
2. I also will always ask what are their top 3 priorities for the next 6 months and what my role would be in realizing them.
Answers to these two questions are extremely helpful in finding out if you should accept an employment offer.
It was also Richard Nixon's defense.
Why is making fun of someone for their place of birth any different from making fun of someone for their race? Neither can be controlled by that person.
True enough. However, you can never stop being a certain color. You certainly can stop being ignorant and backward (if you want).
The question is, will they get punished for this by the authorities? The FBI and police seem to be happy to jail writers of virii or worms or those who spread vulnerabilities to unsuspecting systems
That's a really nice sentiment but unlikely to come to pass. For some odd reason, the majority of Americans don't seem to believe that coporations should be punished for crimes or have to pay for damage they do. If your suggestion were to become law, then air polluters might be required to pay for the health care for millions of asthmatic children and the managers of Dow Chemical would be on death row for the murder of 800 people in Bhopal, India.
It's not a "wild-eyed devotion" so much as a recognition that one thing is science and one thing is not. Kansan students are not going to be graduating knowing what is and is not science. I won't have any positions in my company available for astrologers either.
This country (US) is drifting more and more away from science and more towards superstition.... We're headed for trouble economically, culturally, and politically if we don't stop this nonsense.
"Headed for trouble"? Look around, friend - we have arrived.
Maybe, but the left doesn't have TV and radio show hosts for their name-calling.
Sometimes they mean "women's libbers" too.
The right just loves to make up names.
The rest of us stopped that around the 3rd grade.
It's a perfectly cromulent word
I can't recall seeing any book burnings or intellectuals being rounded up.
Do you think the absence of these two things means there is no censorship?
That's a little strong; censorship efforts also come from the left, but more around issues of race, gender, and religion. Zealotry is an equal-opportunity annoyer.
While it's fun to bash the liberals for political-correctness, you're very wrong about the roots of censorship.
From the American Library Association (bold-face is mine):
Three of the 10 books on the "Ten Most Challenged Books of 2004" were cited for homosexual themes - which is the highest number in a decade. Sexual content and offensive language remain the most frequent reasons for seeking removal of books from schools and public libraries.
I can and I am. George Bush has openly said he wants "intelligent design" taught in schools. Time and effort spent teaching religion will be taken away from real subjects - most likely science.
Why would you think otherwise?
I really don't feel that religion has anything to do with this.
You can't be serious. The efforts of the radical right to divert teaching time and effort away from real science and towards "intelligent design" is widely documented.
And, even though it's not specifically science-related, information censorship in libraries and textbooks is nearly always driven by the religious zealots.
One can cherry-pick events to prove a case in either direction. However, until recently, the US never repudiated long-standing humanitarian accords, such as the Geneva Conventions. The difference is between isolated incidents contrary to over-arching policy and a recent fundamental shift in what is accepted as moral behavior. Torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is different than past incidents in that nobody, except some powerless Pfcs, got punished. Name another Attorney General that wrote a legal brief arguing in favor of torture.
Well, I am a good deal older than 7 years. Contrary to what the radical right would want you to believe, there was a time when the USA held a position of respected moral authority. Even our enemies, although they certainly hated us, respected us. The USA is finding themselves with fewer and fewer allies and there has never been a country so powerful that they have no need of allies.
Remember back when the world respected the USA? A lot of that was because the USA also respected the world. Then the Texans took over...